Cited by 721Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 136 of the 136 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 133 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

6. Glycemic Targets: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2023

Open access

Abstract

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) “Standards of Care in Diabetes” includes the ADA’s current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA’s clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This ADA *Standards of Care in Diabetes—2023* section provides evidence-based recommendations for assessing glycemic control and setting individualized glycemic targets in diabetes. It emphasizes A1C, CGM-derived time in range/GMI, hypoglycemia prevention, and balancing benefits against risks.

Key findings

  • For many nonpregnant adults, the A1C goal is <7% (53 mmol/mol) without significant hypoglycemia; a parallel CGM goal is time in range >70%, time below range <4%, and time <54 mg/dL <1%. Less stringent A1C goals such as <8% (64 mmol/mol) may be appropriate for limited life expectancy or when harms outweigh benefits.
  • DCCT intensive versus standard glycemic control (mean A1C about 7% vs. about 9%) reduced development and progression of microvascular complications by 50–76%; EDIC follow-up showed a 57% reduction in nonfatal MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death in the intensive arm. ACCORD was halted early for increased mortality in the intensive arm (1.41% vs. 1.14% per year; hazard ratio 1.22 [95% CI 1.01–1.46]).
  • The ADAG study in 507 adults (83% non-Hispanic White) found an A1C–average glucose correlation of r = 0.92 based on 2,700 readings per A1C measurement; retrospective data suggest 70% time in range aligns with an A1C of 7%. CGM improved A1C by 0.3–0.6% in people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes above target.
  • Hypoglycemia is classified as level 1: glucose <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) and ≥54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L); level 2: <54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L); level 3: a severe event requiring assistance. Treatment is approximately 15–20 g glucose, repeated after 15 minutes if BGM shows continued hypoglycemia.

Methods

  • Design: ADA clinical practice recommendations, updated annually by the multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, with evidence-graded recommendations.
  • Data: narrative synthesis of trials and studies including DCCT/EDIC, UKPDS, Kumamoto, ACCORD, ADVANCE, VADT, and ADAG, plus consensus reports; no new primary data collection.
  • Analysis: expert consensus and evidence review; detailed evidence-grading methodology is referred to the Introduction and Methodology section.

Limitations

  • Stated: A1C is an indirect measure affected by red blood cell turnover, hemoglobin variants, pregnancy, end-stage kidney disease, and other conditions, and it does not measure glycemic variability or hypoglycemia. CGM studies had differing entry A1C and endpoints and must be interpreted carefully; no study reported a decrease in level 3 hypoglycemia, and type 2 diabetes CGM evidence on hypoglycemic events is limited.
  • Evident: This is a guideline/standards chapter rather than a primary systematic review; methods and evidence grading are deferred to another section, and the recommendations are intended to be individualized rather than applied rigidly.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2337/dc23-s006

Cites

136 of 136 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 133 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 23
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 29
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
43 of 43
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A1C reflects average glycemia over approximately 3 months.

    “A1C reflects average glycemia over approximately 3 months.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The A1C test is an indirect measure of average glycemia and is subject to limitations.

    “The A1C test is an indirect measure of average glycemia and, as such, is subject to limitations.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A1C does not provide a measure of glycemic variability or hypoglycemia.

    “A1C does not provide a measure of glycemic variability or hypoglycemia.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A1C assays are available that do not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in individuals with hemoglobin variants.

    “A1C assays are available that do not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in individuals with hemoglobin variants.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Other A1C assays have statistically significant interference, but the difference is not clinically significant.

    “Other assays have statistically significant interference, but the difference is not clinically significant.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors were not approved at the time of the ACCORD, ADVANCE, and VADT trials.

    “glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors were not approved at the time of these trials.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Diabetes is a chronic disease that progresses over decades.

    “Diabetes is a chronic disease that progresses over decades.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Postprandial hyperglycemia contributes to elevated A1C levels, with its relative contribution being greater at A1C levels closer to 7%.

    “It is clear that postprandial hyperglycemia, like preprandial hyperglycemia, contributes to elevated A1C levels, with its relative contribution being greater at A1C levels that are closer to 7% (53 mmol/mol).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Hypoglycemia is the major limiting factor in the glycemic management of type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

    “Hypoglycemia is the major limiting factor in the glycemic management of type 1 and type 2 diabetes.”
9 of 9

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Reference number 21 is assigned to two different studies

    Minor

    The reference list assigns number 21 to both a study of glucose concentrations in children with type 1 diabetes and a different study of diabetes screening in a middle-school cohort, making citations to (21) ambiguous.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 136 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 721

Metadata

Authors
ElSayed, N. A., Aleppo, G., Aroda, V. R., Bannuru, R. R., Brown, F. M., Bruemmer, D., Collins, B. S., Hilliard, M. E., Isaacs, D., Johnson, E. L., Kahan, S., Khunti, K., Leon, J., Lyons, S. K., Perry, M. L., Prahalad, P., Pratley, R. E., Seley, J. J., Stanton, R. C., & Gabbay, R. A.
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2022-12-12
Volume
46
Issue
Supplement_1
Pages
S97-S110
ISSN
0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4311158234
Cited by
684
References
136
Citations by year
2026: 77 · 2025: 170 · 2024: 269 · 2023: 168
FWCI
21.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
glycemic targets, diabetes management, American Diabetes Association standards of care, clinical guidelines, quality of care, treatment goals, level of evidence
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Endocrinology, Humans, Reference Standards, Societies, Medical, Standard of Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review